In the April 16 Article Michael Bloomberg lays bare the extent of his rage against the Second Amendment. He says, “You have to be careful if there’s two issues you care about . . . what do you do? And I think you’ve got to pick your issue. In our case, my case, it’s guns. I care very much about immigration. But guns are the No. 1 thing. So I’ve got a senator who’s running for re-election. He’s terrible on guns but good on immigration. I’m going after him. That’s it.” After three consecutive mayoral terms, Bloomberg’s new reason for being is this: destroy the Second Amendment. Other concerns are secondary.

In the April 15 NY Times Article Bloomberg gives us his strategy. It belies his true intent. “The strategy will focus not on sweeping federal restrictions to ban certain weapons, but instead will seek to expand the background check system for gun buyers both at the state and national levels.” Bloomberg is evasive. The strategy is stopgap. Bloomberg’s fanatical aim remains unchanged. He seeks to remove civilian access to firearms. This becomes clear in the April 16 NY Times Article. In that Article Bloomberg adds, “you can have a ban on assault weapons. But assault weapons kill 400 people a year. They get a lot of press. But its 400 vs. 31,000 with handguns.” “I think having a gun at home when you have children is really dumb.” These statements hint at Bloomberg’s real intent: further confiscation of firearms.

Bloomberg doesn’t cite authority to support his claims. But the assertions are still doubtful. Let us assume Bloomberg’s statistics are true. If Bloomberg is referring to homicides, he shouldn’t target guns, but, rather, criminal use of guns. Bloomberg doesn’t do that. He conflates issues. All antigun zealots do. Bloomberg does so because his goal is not to see a fall in crime. It’s gun confiscation. If both an armed public and bold criminal statutes are the best solution to a fall in crime, Bloomberg, likely, would still prefer gun confiscation to an to an armed public and bold criminal statutes. If so, the issue of gun violence is simply a “blind” to distract the public from the true issue: gun confiscation.

Second, Bloomberg gives us a straw man argument to knock down. The argument may go like this: No sane, responsible person wishes to see an innocent child harmed. Dangerous items in homes are threats to children. Responsible parents do not keep dangerous items in their homes. Guns are by nature dangerous items. Since a sane, responsible parent doesn’t want to see a child harmed by guns, no rational and responsible parent would keep a gun in the house.

The straw man is Bloomberg’s claim that gun owners with children are irrational and irresponsible. The idea is absurd but it goes to the central belief of all antigun zealots: gun owners are irrational, erratic and irresponsible. Of course, Bloomberg begs the question: is a law-abiding, adult who wishes to defend home and family with a firearm, irresponsible and irrational for wishing to do so? Bloomberg says, “of course.” He takes this as a given – true beyond need for proof. But, many items are potentially dangerous. Take a look at contents of a medicine cabinet, cutlery in the kitchen, power tools in the garage.

Clearly, the precautions one takes with dangerous items are what’s important, not the items themselves. Keep in mind, Bloomberg wished to ban firearms that New York law defines as “assault weapons.” After all, he signed the NY SAFE Act into law. The NY SAFE Act’s signature feature is a ban on “assault weapons.” Next, Bloomberg aims to ban all handguns. That’s implied in his statement, “I think having a gun at home when you have children is really dumb.” Had Bloomberg served a fourth Mayoral term, he likely would’ve banned handguns under NY SAFE. And he wouldn’t have stopped there. He aims to ban all guns. Will New York City’s current Mayor, Bill de Blasio extend NY SAFE? We’ll wait and see.

Bloomberg’s handgun comment is odd and outrageous for a third reason. Bloomberg has the nerve to reassert the D.C. handgun ban the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). Bloomberg condemns possession of handguns even for self-defense in one’s home. But, that assertion directly contradicts a key Supreme Court holding in Heller.

The Supreme Court stated clearly: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” Notably, the Supreme Court didn’t qualify those homeowners entitled to use firearms for self-defense: families with children versus families sans children. By arguing anew a ban on handguns Bloomberg is ignoring a principal holding of the U.S. Supreme Court. He’s denying the rule of law, holding himself as a king, and deciding destiny for our Country.

In fact, Bloomberg’s antigun agenda is more ambitious than that designed by District of Columbia politicians. For Bloomberg has not suggested banning handguns only in New York. So, Bloomberg’s goal of gun confiscation goes well beyond the total handgun ban the District of Columbia passed for itself. Clearly, Bloomberg won’t rest until he sees a total ban on firearms. His goal is de facto repeal of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Systematic rejection of our sacred “Bill of Rights” is, it seems, the endgame of Billionaire internationalists. For them, the United States Constitution is too old. The internationalists want to draft a new Constitution for us, absent a “Bill of Rights” – a Constitution for the “21st Century.” They want one compatible with their geopolitical and economic policies and objectives. The notion of individual liberties as set forth in our “Bill of Rights” does not fit with those policies and objectives. So, the billionaire internationalists want a constitution belittling our unique heritage – a Constitution homogenous with those of other Western Nations. I’m sure Bloomberg has some interesting ideas for us.